On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:24 PM, George Bosilca <[email protected]> wrote:

...

I understand that it is desirable to be vague in some places. But this is not a case of being vague: it's a case of being *wrong*. And it should therefore be fixed.

The challenge here was to explain a concept without referring to the notion of “unexpected” messages as it is lacking from the standard. I guess any reasonable user would understand that files must be closed, windows must be synchronized, but for pt2pt things are different because two sides are involved. Marking them as complete is only enough on one side, they should be matched in the other in order to really disappear. Thus, completed and matched make sense …

Yes -- for p2p only. :-) (we're violently agreeing, I think)

Anyway, if you propose to replace this text with the one Rajeev mentioned in his email (from MPI_Finalize), I guess is a good solution.

Yeah, or a reference to it. Nathan and I will cook up an errata proposal. -- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/